to believe that beyond all reasonable doubt

[OurBetty]

there is no god?

When has anyone claimed that religion owned morality? Certainly the Bible mentions that you can do good works but it's whether you have a loving heart that counts. "If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing."

Has anyone ever seen that Xfiles episode "Improbable" ? It's in that last season, so no Mulder (booooo!). God is played by Burt Reynolds. When I think of God it's very vague, but occasionally I flash onto Burt Reynolds' face. :o

the last season, I mean.

For me personally, I am someone who does not ascribe to god's but a monothestic view,that would according to wikipeida leave me with a choice of 11 religions.

Firstly Hinduisim and Sikhisim, which is arguable they have they same God,(though the argument is inconclusive).

Then I could choose from Judaisim, Christianity or Islam.

Now obviously the first two are the same God. Again it is arguable that the God is Islam is the same as in Christianity, after all Jesus is of course in the Qu'ran. Again this idea is very debated.

There is a list of African reilgions but no futher info.

We then have

Bahá'í, Brahma Kumaris,but I cannot comment as I(and am sure not many on here) have ever heard of them.

We then have Jehovah's witnesses and Mormonism which of course have the same God from the Bible.

I;m quite enjoying the name of Japanese 'Happy Science'.

Zoroastrianism is my last choice.

So that leaves me 6 Gods to pick.

Well of course I cannot say every other religion is wrong.But I can say the only thing that matters to me that makes you a Christian is accepting Jesus for who he said he was. I do,hence I would feel that was what was right for me.

That does mean I can discount anyone else's view's or be intolerant though becuase I made a personal choice to believe.

I must say as a 'none-believer' UD, you just can't seem to let this go, can you? And thank you for your link. It was most....instructive?
Of course one's faith and degree of it may be culturally conditioned, in the same way that clothing and lots of other things are similarly defined. But many people do spend a lot of time in thoughtful reflection (no, not just an 'emotional' reaction as indicated by someone much further up) and come to differing conclusions outside of their conditioning regarding their spiritual path. And their clothing!.

I believe with all my heart that there is something there after death.

I don't judge others though on what they believe. I'm a catholic btw. I'd be very depressed if I suddenly found out there was nothing at all :(

My position is that I would be quite prepared to just let people believe what they want to believe, if people of faith didn't seem to think they have a right to impose my views on other people. There are so many areas of public life - education and science policy, to name but two, where Christians have a voice which carries disproportionate weight. That is why I can't just live and let live. Because people of faith don't!

"to impose their views" obviously!

thats exactly it seeker! Christians bleating about the mean old atheists complaining about their religion...I don't care about your personal faith, good luck to you, hope you enjoy it. But your faith controls aspects of society for the rest of us. Your god sneaks into schools and government, law. If your religion left us alone, you can trust that you wouldn't be hearing much from the atheists.

Nearly all of today's society is based on secular values, in fact it's so all-pervasive most people accept this as the "default". Religious input is only noticed because it stands out, it differs from the very secular world we now live in.

So what would the ideal future look like for an athesit?

The Atheists having complete control and taking all religious rights away?

Let's burn the religious texts, burn the churches and ban the symbols.

The religious being forced to oppress their faiths, being forced underground.Perhaps it should even be made illegal?

It's about sacrificing one groups liberties for your own.

It's about having one view,one one of thinking and one view only. The atheist way is the right way.

Lets keep our chilren close minded. Let's keep them ignorant of culture and history and any freedom of thought.

I mean freedom of speech is great isn't it... as long as totally agree's with you.

Sounds... ideal,doesn't it?

Roseflower - you do know that that was a very silly post indeed, don;t you?

"Atheist" is not a synonym for "totalitarian" or "stalinist"

No-one mentioned Stalin Seeker. Except for you.

Rather than saying how silly I am why not actually illustrate your point. What would the future look like then?

What a daft post by Roseflower. I don't believe the Greek gods or the Egyptian gods were "real", but that doesn't means we shouldn't study and appreciate their history, their culture and their myths.

Sigh.

You dont understand my post UD. You asked my why I choose the God I did and it is explanied very carefully. I also said that doesn't mean any other religions are wrong.All personal belief.

The word Monothestic means 'one' UD. That is what the post is about. Religions with one God. The post went through each religion but I realsie it is complex.

I simply cannot find the bit that said ", but thatmeans we shouldn't study and appreciate their history, their culture and their myths."of Greek godessess but maybe your talking about another post I missed.

The future would look very much as it does now. Except that people of faith would not have special treatment when it comes to education, the law or science policy. So, for example, schools would teach about religion rather than teaching children to practice religion.

We would also able to have proper debates about stem cell research and euthanasia withoug having to worry about treading on the delicate sensibilities of the religious. Who whoud, of course, be free not to avail themselves of any of the scientific advances they disapprove of - they just wouldn;t be any longer in a position to impose their views on others.

Don't patronise me. I do know what "mono" means. It's from the Greek, meaning "alone" or "single." I studied the Greek myths in school, did I mention? They're more fun than the Christian ones...

Keep up. You said that people are saying "Let's keep our children closed-minded. Let's keep them ignorant of culture and history." I am pointing out that you can very easily study culture and history without believing gods are real. Is that clear now?

Then don't call me daft. You asked a question, I gave you an answer. My answer was educated, informed, clear and plainly stated I did not dismess anyone else belief.It showed great rudeness to dismiss it as daft, and even insecurity that maybe you did not understand, but that is no excuse to call anyone 'daft'.

Care to respond to me now? I'm the one who thought your post was silly, remember?

your debating skills on par with a potato, Roseflower.

The future would look very much as it does now. Except that people of faith would not have special treatment when it comes to education, the law or science policy. So, for example, schools would teach about religion rather than teaching children to practice religion.

But if people choose to send their children to a faith school, why cannot they not be taught how to practice it? How is that fair and living in a free society. There is plently of schools aready that do as propose. You just to rid the exsisitng choice of anyone who might happen to be different from you?

We would also able to have proper debates about stem cell research and euthanasia withoug having to worry about treading on the delicate sensibilities of the religious. Who whoud, of course, be free not to avail themselves of any of the scientific advances they disapprove of - they just wouldn;t be any longer in a position to impose their views on others.

So then you would expect to have special treatment to carry on as pleases you, giving absoloutely no consideration to anyone who happens to have a beleif at all?They have to do as you say? No opposing view allowed.

The faithful can be seen but not heard?

I don't think we could get a clear cut answer if Euthanasia was right and get the go ahead,just because you managed to silence the religious, because relgious or not there is still the question of ethics and morals.

And morals doesn't go out of the window just because religion does.

The future would look very much as it does now. Except that people of faith would not have special treatment when it comes to education, the law or science policy. So, for example, schools would teach about religion rather than teaching children to practice religion.

But if people choose to send their children to a faith school, why cannot they not be taught how to practice it? How is that fair and living in a free society. There is plently of schools aready that do as propose. You just to rid the exsisitng choice of anyone who might happen to be different from you?

We would also able to have proper debates about stem cell research and euthanasia withoug having to worry about treading on the delicate sensibilities of the religious. Who whoud, of course, be free not to avail themselves of any of the scientific advances they disapprove of - they just wouldn;t be any longer in a position to impose their views on others.

So then you would expect to have special treatment to carry on as pleases you, giving absoloutely no consideration to anyone who happens to have a beleif at all?They have to do as you say? No opposing view allowed.

The faithful can be seen but not heard?

If you think we could get a clear cut answer if Euthanasia was right and get the go ahead,just because you managed to silence the religious I think this would be naive. Relgious or not there is still the question of ethics and morals.

And morals doesn't go out of the window just because religion does.

your debating skills on par with a potato, Roseflower.

You really are fine person WinterOfOurDiscountTents

I would love to offer a crtique of your debating skills. Except I haven't seen any yet.

!. There is no such thing as a secular school in this country. religious people can send their children to faith schools - non-religious people cannot send their children to secular schools. You are misinformed if you think this is not the case.

1. Religious peole have the freedom to argue theri points and do theri best to convince others of the rightness of their cause - nobody said anything about silencing them. But religious believers currently hold a privileged position within the legislature - eg the presence Bishops in the house of Lords. There is no equivalent requirement for representation of secular people.

1. I am nto asking that religion go out of the window. I am asking for it to have no place in public life. Morality, however, as you so wisely point out, is not the sole preserve of the religious. And so it will continue to inform decision making.